No Sacrament For You!

In the wake of the U.S. election, there appears to remain a sector of the Roman Catholic community that is challenging the votes and political commitments of its parishioners. In some previous elections, especially in 2004, there was a notorious effort by certain localized authorities in the Church to use the power of withholding the Eucharist from politicians who supported political positions at variance with the Church, including Sen. John Kerry, a Catholic who was the Democratic nominee for President that year. This was despite the protests of many experts in Canon Law and theology who claimed refusing the Eucharist was beyond the bounds of acceptability.

Even much earlier in the 2008 race, the same questions arose again over Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City who was running for President on the Republican ticket, but unlike some other candidates, supported the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision to allow legalized abortion nationwide. I'm a bit surprised to find that this issue has continued to be pushed in the Church. Out of South Carolina today, we get word that a priest had admonished his parishioners that if they voted for Sen. Barack Obama for President, they should not receive communion because of their sin in supporting a "the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president."

That's a fair bit of hyperbole, to be sure. But it suggests that this issue is not going away. With the recent shift of the country more towards the political left, and the movement of evangelicals to considered larger social issues such as poverty and racism, this may be out of step with where the American electorate is going. One thing is for sure. American Catholics do not like to be ordered to vote a certain way. There is ample evidence that acting dictatorial towards Catholics gets them to do the exact opposite of what you want, at least as far as American Catholics are concerned. American Catholics (and Episcopalians for that matter) have never behaved as their other worldwide counterparts have anyway.

Perhaps most interestingly, actual Roman Catholic theologians (which Bishops are not) are by no means convinced of the absoluteness of the Vatican's position on what they term "pelvic issues," which seem to overshadow far more traditional moral and social gospel concerns for Catholicism. Some of them are speaking out very stridently, and I expect this to continue, should Bishops and priests on the other side continue to make political pronouncements from tax-free pulpits.

The Internal Revenue Service noted that 2004 saw a spike in illegal endorsements coming from tax-exempt entities. And there appears to have already been some investigation of at least one Catholic Church official's criticism of Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani. One might think that an institution that has undergone such a recent public crisis of moral confidence might not want to interest the IRS to take a closer look as well.

The Political Sermon Season

I've taken a break from writing this blog for the past few weeks. In that time I've moved to Iowa State University and begun my teaching schedule there. I very much enjoy my position and am looking forward to having a great teaching semester. In the meantime, there is no shortage of religious issues at hand in the news, certainly in the U.S political arena.

The recent buzz on the net in terms of religion and politics has been focused on the candidacy of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. After what seems to have been a very short vetting and interview process, she was asked to join the 2008 GOP Presidential candidacy of Senator John McCain. Social conservatives and reactionary evangelicals alike have been quite happy with her appointment, while it seems to have caught many others by surprise. Until 2002, Palin was a member of Wassila Assemblies of God church, well known for its Pentacostalism. During the time she has been governor, she addressed her old church, reminiscing about her time there, as well as asking for prayers for her agenda. While this seems to sit well with Christian fundamentalists, it is important to remember that Pentacostalism is rooted in the experience of the Holy Spirit, rather than a set of doctrines about the content of the Bible. And this can lead to serious disagreements and divisions.

This is all nothing necessarily new. While it may seem strange to some secularists and mainline Protestants, the notion of using prayer to assist in accomplishing political, economic goals is not that uncommon. Palin's interpretation of recent events and public history in Alaska as accomplishing more of God's work is also consistent with other themes seen in conservative and Pentecostal circles. What seems strange in retrospect is her contention that the Iraq War was divinely sanctioned, although when taken in the context of the "War on Terrorism" as a whole and the idea of a clash of civilizations, it too makes some sense, even if it makes me shake my head more than a little bit.



I find the premillenialist language of the pastor unnerving. Pentecostals commonly worship in such as manner as to, in the words of a legendary Jewish occultist (new window), "enflame themselves with prayer." The Book of Acts in the New Testament describes spiritual gifts that can be bestowed upon those who do so, and the gift of the Holy Spirit that arrives is often represented as a flame in classical art. Part of these gifts include the gift of prophecy. (new window) In premillenialist Christianity, the world is, by design, supposed to get much worse as a place to live before Christ can return in bodily form. Certain areas are talked about as places of refuge--and clearly the pastor sees Alaska as one of those spaces. Thus, Palin's audience is training to witness to both native Alaskans and those who will seek refuge in that state as conditions elsewhere deteriorate. Certainly, the older pastor (and church founder) prayed for candidate to achieve office, as well as giving thanks for those Pentecostal spiritual blessings.



The current senior pastor at Palin's Wasilla Assembly of God Church, Rev. Ed Kalnins, has been attracting his own attention. Palin left that church in 2002 for another Pentacostal church, but in 2004, Kalnins made some fiery statements--specifically challenging the salvation status of anyone who voted for John Kerry, the Democratic nominee. Reportedly, Re. Kalnins also equated criticism of President Bush after Hurricane Katrina with criticism of pastors and authority, which would also condemn one to hellfire. The liberal blog Huffington Post has been tracking this, and provided a link to the original media. Unfortunately, Wasilla's online media distribution is down, ostensibly because of the increased internet traffic. Some sermons and transcripts (not these) seem to be available at a different site. One sermon seems to include material that the Anti-Defamantion League is not happy about.

Contrast this, though, if you will, to the political prayers that were the focus of so much media attention earlier in the political campaign, the sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright at the Trinity Church of Christ.



Rev. Wright's sermon is known as a "Jeremiad." Its name comes from the Hebrew prophet Jeremiah, who laid blame for Israel's woes at the faithlessness and adultery of its people from its covenant with YHWH. The jeremiad sermon is an extensive American tradition, at least since Jonathan Edwards, brought most to fruition by African-American Protestants. It often includes an indictment of the iniquities of the current culture and suggests that those woes are connected to the lack of moral behavior of its principles (new window). The sacred condemnation of God upon the United States ("God Damn America!") that was played and replayed without context endlessly on 24-hour news networks is also part of this tradition, designed to wake people up to both their religious and social responsibilities.

If there has been a greater season for 'political sermons,' I don't know of one. What impact will they each ultimately have, if any, on candidates Obama and Palin? For those who think it might not matter, you could ask Mitt Romney about that. Certainly Gov. Romney's candidacy was derailed when religious conservatives opted to vote for Gov. Mike Huckabee, not least of which because Mitt Romney is a Mormon.

(Note: The picture for this post is the front cover of John Winthrop's "A Model of Christian Charity," a foundational document in American religious history that gave birth to the American jeremiad. It is commonly known as the "City On A Hill" sermon)

"Good men should combat the believer in divine creation, maddened by an evil doctrine."

The symbol you see beside this paragraph is the official U.S. military headstone designation for an atheist soldier. I've placed it here because CNN is reporting that Army Spc. Jeremy Hall, a two-tour Iraq war veteran and atheist, is suing U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Department of Defense for illegal religious discrimination. Spc. Hall claims that he was subjected to intense evangelical Christian proselytizing while on duty, and also passed up for promotions based on the view that his lack of visible piety would make him unfit for leadership. His lawsuit is also joined by Michael Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

Weinstein and others have long alleged that there is a pervasive pattern of evangelical proselytization in the U.S. military, and CNN has periodically picked up on this story. Just last August, a scandal broke when several generals were found to have appeared in uniform inside the Pentagon for a promotional video by a group called "Christian Embassy." In Hall's recent lawsuit, the allegations of the videotape have again surfaced. All in all, from the Air Force Academy to General William Boykin, there does seem to be some pattern of evangelizing, although it is difficult for an outsider like myself to say how ingrained it is. When I served in the USAF Auxiliary-Civil Air Patrol many years ago, many of my fellow members and the chaplain were evangelicals. I once took our flight chaplain to task for misrepresenting the character of ancient Gnosticism during a pep talk, but that is a another story.

There are a number of intriguing angles to this issue. Clearly, one role of religion here is to help create "docile bodies," in this case a standing army of evangelical soldiers whose behavior and discipline are subject to the all-seeing Panopticon of Jehovah's omniscience and moral judgment. Also, the evangelical Christian nature of most military proselytizing potentially lends a propaganda victory to Al-Qaeda, which has long pushed the idea that the U.S. army is essentially modern "Crusader" force.

More importantly though, this lawsuit (and the accompanying media story) helps us think about what constitutes "atheism" in American culture. Legally and culturally speaking, "religion" is defined as a "set of beliefs." Notice how this is almost exactly equivalent to the notion of devotion expressed in Protestant Christianity. That is no accident. While other religions, like Roman Catholicism, Judaism and Islam emphasize correct practice and action (orthopraxis) over specific beliefs, Protestant Christianity, especially evangelical Protestantism, emphasizes correct belief (orthodoxy). Although radical, certainly some members of the Jewish community have embraced a form of atheism while maintaining the need for ritual action.

The culture of religion and religion of culture in the U.S. has thus been framed in such a way that even dissent against its dominant content (Protestant Christianity) still follows the form (lack of "belief in God" or belief in a "lack of God") established for public discourse. Of course, other characteristics, such as monotheism, are also at work here, since few atheists discuss their disbelief in polytheisms. Atheism in the U.S., generally speaking, is a form of negative or inverse Protestantism, since, like Protestantism, holds that belief is somehow the most fundamental and irreducible characteristic of "religion." This stands in contrast to Secular Humanism, which is generally focused on promoting a common ethical way of life, rather than denying the theistic claims of others.

This is certainly not the only way that atheism has been expressed in worldwide religious arenas. Nor is atheism a modern phenomenon. The ancient Charvakas (Wikipedia has the best link, unfortunately) developed a high degree of skepticism regarding Gods and such. Jainism, a living religion of 8 million people today, has produced some of the strongest anti-theistic critiques ever known, yet it would be inaccurate to call it atheistic in the modern EuroWestern sense, as it is not materialistic or atomistic, in contrast to the U.S military's symbol for atheists.

Although the lawsuit has no chance of challenging or causing Americans to rethink how they view "religion," it nonetheless tests the boundaries of religious and ethical inclusion. Politically speaking, atheists are some of the least trusted people in the United States. In fact, several state Constitutions appear to discriminate against atheists. In 1961, the Supreme Courts's landmark case "Torcaso V. Watkins" nullified these portions of the state Constitutions, but they remain interesting by way of demonstrating the legal and historical climate for religion in this country.